Case law

Sacred Heart Hospital v. Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare (In Re Sacred Heart Hospital)

204 B.R. 132 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1997

I, § 8, cl. 4 (“The Congress shall have Power [t]o ... establish uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies”). The Bankruptcy Clause is identical to the Indian Commerce Clause in both wording and scope. … However, the court did not clearly state the authority for finding such an all-encompassing waiver. It relied on §§ 106(b) and (c), and cited Langenkamp v.

NATIVIDAD v. RALEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 2025

Dennis subsequently addressed whether the due process rights against use of fabricated evidence and deliberate deception were, in 1992, clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. 19 F.4th at 288–92. … Accordingly, the court reiterated, fabrication of evidence contravened clearly established law. Id. at 290. The court rejected the detectives’ Brady-related qualified immunity argument.

Dabney v. Investment Corp. of America

82 F.R.D. 464 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 25, 1979

The facts of this case clearly do not bring it within the above exception, since it appears that ICA, through its president, Richard J. Micheel, was well aware that Mr. … Criteria for admission to the bar are carefully established and maintained in order to guarantee some minimum level of competence within the legal profession.

Roach v. Shields

371 F. Supp. 1392 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 1974

It is established that members of the United States military service are immune from recovery, in suits brought by fellow members of the military service, for service-connected injuries caused by their negligent acts, either … The claim of the plaintiff herein falls clearly within the scope of this principle. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.

CLARK v. MERRELL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 28, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. … If none exists, then “it may be possible that a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority’ in the Courts of Appeals could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.” L.R. v. Sch.

NATIVIDAD v. RALEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 30, 2025

Dennis subsequently addressed whether the due process rights against use of fabricated evidence and deliberate deception were, in 1992, clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity. 19 F.4th at 288–92. … Accordingly, the court reiterated, fabrication of evidence contravened clearly established law. Id. at 290. The court rejected the detectives’ Brady-related qualified immunity argument.

Nawuoh v. Venice Ashby Cmty. Ctr.

802 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2011

The Court does not read Defendants' Motion as predicated on such immunity: Defendants simply note in passing that in their Answer they had "averred that they are immune from suit pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8522 and the Eleventh … Cons.Stat. § 1544, this is not dispositive of the federal qualified immunity analysis.

SAULTZ v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. JOSH SHAPIRO ATTORNEY GENERAL

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 8, 2022

Even assuming, however, that the Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, they are immune from Section 1983 liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate “a clearly established … “To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, [we] engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established

Jacobs v. COUNTY OF BUCKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2022

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. … Khan and McKevitt are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the section 1983 claim.

RILEY v. BOROUGH OF EDDYSTONE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 2025

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … The key questions for analyzing qualified immunity in First Amendment retaliation cases are (1) whether the law clearly established that a given action by the employer was sufficiently adverse, and (2) whether the law clearly

Mozingo v. Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry Bureau of Unemployment Benefits & Allowances

234 B.R. 867 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 19, 1999

DISCUSSION On appeal, BUCBA argues that: (1) it has sovereign immunity from actions to avoid or invalidate its liens; (2) the filing of a proof of claim does not constitute a waiver of immunity; (3) its property interest … Most importantly, in the 1963-1964 amendments the legislature clearly addressed and resolved the issues involved in Lombardo.

THOMAS v. LIGOURI

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 13, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … a federal right and (2) whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation.

Retail Clerks International Ass'n, Local 1357 v. Leonard

450 F. Supp. 663 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1978

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY Defendant Leonard asserts that he is immune from suit because of his status as *666 a judicial officer. … thus cloaked with immunity.

GRANT v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2022

At summary judgment, the police officer as the movant has the burden of establishing an entitlement to qualified immunity. … Defendants also suggest that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity as to Grant’s First Amendment claims because “it is not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause 10 The qualified

Udujih v. City of Philadelphia

513 F. Supp. 2d 350 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 14, 2007

To establish a claim of promissory estoppel, the plaintiff must establish “(1) a promise to a promisee, (2) which the promisor should reasonably expect will induce action by the promisee, (3) which does induce such action … Clearly, the intentional torts alleged in Counts IX and X fall within the purview of § 8550, and the individual defendants are not entitled to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of those counts.

Fitzpatrick v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Transp.

40 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 1999

PennDOT is clearly a state agency and thus eligible for Eleventh Amendment protection. See Daye v. … Because it is firmly established that individual employees cannot be held liable under Title VII’s definition of employer, see e.g., Dici v.

Hedrick v. S. Bonaccurso & Sons, Inc.

466 F. Supp. 1025 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 1978

. § 201.43 ] in no way suggests an intention to override established principles of state commercial law which might strike a different balance.” … These facts appear to be clearly supported by deposition testimony and are considered established for purposes of deciding all four motions herein, and for purposes of trial. 3 .

EDWARDS v. MORGAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 23, 2020

Qualified Immunity Ms. Morgan also asserts that she is entitled to qualified immunity because her reliance on Mr. Edwards’s consent to enter was reasonable and she did not violate clearly established law. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages provided that their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Balmaceda v. United States

815 F. Supp. 823 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1992

The Act provides for a limited waiver of immunity with respect to certain tort claims committed by United States employees. 3 However, as the “exceptions” to the FTCA make clear, Congress’ waiver of sovereign immunity under … Therefore, the language of the statute clearly affords the FDA with the discretion to act without requesting or relying on the results of the testing of samples.

Lawless v. Central Engineering Co.

502 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 1980

from liability because of the spousal immunity rule. … This acquiescence could take several forms, but quite clearly, there is no incentive for the joined employer vigorously to defend. Indeed, there is a clear incentive for him not to defend.